Thank you for a most interesting article.

At the close of your first paragraph you have written, “We as citizens deserve more and the severity of today’s issues demands better.”

Just why, do you suppose, we deserve more? What data do you have to support this claim? It appears to me that you are not following your own advice, having here made an emotional appeal without supporting it with a rationale.

In the fourth paragraph you write that we should “…[establish] proper criteria for assessing the presidential debates.” but you never tell us how to do this. This would be very valuable information.

Following this, you offer, “We all see past the glitz and glam…” Well… I’m sure that you can see where this one is going.

Later in your piece you bring forth the ubiquitous laundry list (First, Second, etc…) but fail to inform us as to how you would get agreement from the debating parties as to how they could be brought to embrace your very worthwhile points.

Is this agreement not necessary as a prerequisite to executing the list? And, is the list not largely meaningless without it except as an academic argument?

As Rosemarie points out the Debate commission is a sham especially after they took the “debates” away from the League of Women Voters after they allowed John Anderson to participate in 1980.

Beverly is right to blame the networks.

But the real problem is the lack of democracy. The media was taken away from the people for decades and monopolization is making matters worse.

I don’t think fighting for a place on the debate is going to work unless the people in some way shape or form can wrestle power away from the networks and to reclaim the airwaves for the people.

I recall Howard Dean during his 2004 campaign mentioning enforcing Sherman Anti-Trust and not long after his campaign went down in flames.

The media will continue to pacify the public until they are broken up into little pieces or the public can regain control.

Anyhow, both presidential candidates prove they have no respect for their constituency, as they continuously rattle off buzz words in hopes it’ll win votes or even inspire; when in reality they’re talking down to us like we’re children. It’s obvious McCain and Palin fall victim to this more than Obama and Biden.

To get beyond buzzwords and slogans would mean these politicians would actually have to do something that is rarely done in today’s society: Tell the truth.

Hey, that’s a three-word slogan. Perhaps I can put that on some T-shirts and sell it to all those Joe Six Packs, Mavericks and those individuals who want “A change they can believe in”? I think I just threw up in my mouth.

Both candidates are part of the same hypocrisy. With Nader not being involved in the debate, it reinforces the notion that the two party system in the United States is fraudulent and money-driven. But I guess we already knew that. But why do we remain apathetic? Everyone has reasons. I understand. I’m not trying to call anyone out, especially since I’m not out on the revolutionary front with my mega phone and anti-establishment fist shaking.

I think most individuals feel obligated to “get” something out of the debates in fear their co-workers and peers will make them feel mentally inferior. Therefore, everyone tends to overanalyze and nitpick. But how can you nitpick a discussion with few merits? It would be like dissecting an episode of (insert name of trite NBC sitcom; I’m going with the universally despised “Friends”) to find a deeper meaning of why Joey ate Chandler’s sandwich.

We face real problems as a nation. These problems cannot be explained in soundbites or the like. Unfortunately, lengthy discussions by would-be leaders are not popular in a society with unlimited entertainment options.

Maybe we really are a nation of children?

I completely agree that Nader–or any other major third party candidates–should be able to debate. The two-party system is a hypocrisy and no doubt limits the range of discussion and range of democratic choices. It basically sets the agenda for what people consider to be “worthy” and “unworthy” topics and issues–like the two-party system itself. I also agree with Beverly that the media plays a big role in all of this. But I decided to save such matters and critiques for another essay :)

Thanks for the comments — Jason.

“Ethiopian occupation troop’s pull-out leaves “government” on brink”

‘Ethiopia, which launched a US-backed military intervention in Somalia in December 2006 in an effort to drive out an Islamist authority in Mogadishu, is now pulling out its troops.’

Regardless of the length of debates, moderators could do a better job of asking relevant questions, including follow-up inquiries. Further, the campaign season is long enough to schedule more debates. For primaries where there often 6-8 candidates, half could debate one night, the other half the following night.

Post debate chatter should involve not pundit prattle over polls and “who won”, but experts of all political persuasions in key domestic and foreign policy areas discussing the merits/workability of candidates’ positions.

I agree 200% with Rosemarie J. that the debates make a sham of so-called democracy when third party/independent candidates aren’t included. Shamocracy runs amok even during the primaries when candidates from even major parties (see: Kucinich and Paul) are excluded from some primary debates.

Unfortunately, the media has abandoned any pretense of journalism to become stenos, cheerleaders, and misleaders for the political and corporate classes.

As for Joe/Jane Public, far too many people have been reared on the non/mis/disinformation of mainstream media to be able to determine that the debates and political coverage are total crap. I work in a courthouse, and have had two judges gush over the debates - both were shocked I wasn’t going to be glued in front of the TV watching them. The less-educated worker bees aren’t much better. I’ve overheard people giddy with excitement and planning to make a night of it - popping popcorn and everything. These folks couldn’t decipher what real news is, much less what constitutes a real debate, if their lives depended on it.

I try to turn on those who are receptive to alternative sources such as this site and Counterpunch but it’s an uphill battle. Most aren’t going to spend time reading lengthy articles, others lack the time to do so or are without a computer. If only we could get these alternative sources’ journalists and contributors on a major TV network. The 20 (or 50)-inch screen appears the best way to educate the voters on what they are missing and what they need to be demanding from those who want their votes.

http://www.countercurrents.org/jackowski020908.htm

Also, if there is anyone out there who does not yet know the candidates positions on health care, war, and the economy, I urge them to stay home on election day. We have far too many uninformed voters.

Also, being a great orator does not necessarily make for a good president. Hitler was a great orator.